Is the Debate Between Science and Religion Unnecessary?

[Diogenes]

My friend Gary Conkling writes about the potential conflict between science and relgion.
Question for debate: Is there necessarily conflict between science and relgion?

People with religious beliefs often view science as anti-religious, even as an attack on religion. The tension between scientific inquiry and religious zealotry is real. Scientists focus on questions while zealots settle for answers, sometimes based on dubious evidence or misconstrued history.

There is a path through the tension. Scientists don’t have to dismiss a greater force and zealots have to rely on faith rather than crypto-facts. We could someday figure out how the universe truly works, but still never know how it came to be. The desire – and for many the desperate need – to know there is something larger out there larger than life as we know it can yield an emotional calm and an enhanced ability to deal with very real and present distress.
....
Questions are not disbelief. Probabilities are safer to cling to than facts in assessing the universe. The scientific method and faith are not incompatible.

https://garyconklinglifenotes.wordpress ... UfIEseHtLQ

Is there a religion that seeks truth, rather than declaring it?

[The Barbarian]

Not according to God. He says that the Earth brought forth living things.

That sounds very much like abiogenesis.

Well, yes. Scientists are finding more and more evidence supporting His word on this.

I'll look forward to when scientists find evidence of this which sounds nothing like abiogenesis:

Genesis 2:21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Who knew the female of our species abiogenesised this way.
Tcg

Here, you've taken an allegory for humans and attempted to make it a literal event. But don't you see that if you assume that verse is a literal event, then you must accept the literal abiogenesis of living things, as God says in Genesis.

Rock and a hard place. Notice that abiogenesis is also described in Genesis in figurative ways.

[The Barbarian]

It might be instructive that the extreme minorities among atheists and believers seem to have an agenda to make science and belief incompatible.

Hmmmmmm. I find their incompatibilities arise quite naturally sans any prodding, both having quite opposite approaches to issues. More often than not belief sits mired in complacent acceptance---If a flat earth was good enough for gramps it's good enough for me. Whereas science strives to resolve matters with observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence.

..

You should probably know that by Jesus' time, there few if any Jewish scholars who thought the Earth was flat. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, a scientist had already accurately determined its circumference. Every educated person in the Roman empire knew this for a fact.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

Question for debate: Is there necessarily conflict between science and religion?

No.

Where the conflict appears to manifest is when folk interpret the science evidence as favoring their non-religious position, and claim science is showing us that we do not exist within a created reality and that there is/are no creator/s.

Science as a process does not because it currently cannot prove or disprove that we exist within a creation or that a creator/creators exist.

So there is no argument between science and religion on those key points.

[Miles]

It might be instructive that the extreme minorities among atheists and believers seem to have an agenda to make science and belief incompatible.

Hmmmmmm. I find their incompatibilities arise quite naturally sans any prodding, both having quite opposite approaches to issues. More often than not belief sits mired in complacent acceptance---If a flat earth was good enough for gramps it's good enough for me. Whereas science strives to resolve matters with observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence.

..

You should probably know that by Jesus' time, there few if any Jewish scholars who thought the Earth was flat. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, a scientist had already accurately determined its circumference. Every educated person in the Roman empire knew this for a fact.

Nice, but my flat earth reference was not one related to historical significance but an illustration of mindless acceptance.

.

[William]

It might be instructive that the extreme minorities among atheists and believers seem to have an agenda to make science and belief incompatible.

Hmmmmmm. I find their incompatibilities arise quite naturally sans any prodding, both having quite opposite approaches to issues. More often than not belief sits mired in complacent acceptance---If a flat earth was good enough for gramps it's good enough for me. Whereas science strives to resolve matters with observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence.

..

You should probably know that by Jesus' time, there few if any Jewish scholars who thought the Earth was flat. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, a scientist had already accurately determined its circumference. Every educated person in the Roman empire knew this for a fact.

Nice, but my flat earth reference was not one related to historical significance but an illustration of mindless acceptance.

.

According to the evidence that I have encountered, there appears to be illustrations of "mindless acceptance" involved with the nontheist crowd as well, so there is nothing apparently remarkable in these type words declaring the problem is all on the theist side.

However, I do question the legitimacy of the use of the word "mindless" as it is obvious that things are being done very mindfully, no matter what position is being defended.

[The Barbarian]

You should probably know that by Jesus' time, there few if any Jewish scholars who thought the Earth was flat. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, a scientist had already accurately determined its circumference. Every educated person in the Roman empire knew this for a fact.

Nice, but my flat earth reference was not one related to historical significance but an illustration of mindless acceptance.

Speaking of which, a lot of people think Columbus was criticized by people who thought the world is flat. A complete fabrication, but it's mindlessly accepted by many.

[Miles]

It might be instructive that the extreme minorities among atheists and believers seem to have an agenda to make science and belief incompatible.

Hmmmmmm. I find their incompatibilities arise quite naturally sans any prodding, both having quite opposite approaches to issues. More often than not belief sits mired in complacent acceptance---If a flat earth was good enough for gramps it's good enough for me. Whereas science strives to resolve matters with observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence.

..

You should probably know that by Jesus' time, there few if any Jewish scholars who thought the Earth was flat. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, a scientist had already accurately determined its circumference. Every educated person in the Roman empire knew this for a fact.

Nice, but my flat earth reference was not one related to historical significance but an illustration of mindless acceptance.

.

According to the evidence that I have encountered, there appears to be illustrations of "mindless acceptance" involved with the nontheist crowd as well, so there is nothing apparently remarkable in these type words declaring the problem is all on the theist side.

However, I do question the legitimacy of the use of the word "mindless" as it is obvious that things are being done very mindfully, no matter what position is being defended.

So you don't think "If a flat earth was good enough for gramps it's good enough for me." is an example of mindless acceptance? Okay.
.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #87]

Show me where I was saying any such thing.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #87]

Show me where I was saying any such thing.

It's a direct quote from post Post #85

.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #87]

Show me where I was saying any such thing.

It's a direct quote from post Post #85

.

You did not quote what I said